The War on Accountability versus the War on Terror

Now that Lieberman has been defeated in the primary, it's time to go for the big question about what exactly has gone wrong over the past six years.  I'm confronted in the media over and over with the London bombing plot and how that supposedly helps Lieberman and conservative candidates, and I can't help but give a nod to Bush's most brilliant lie, uttered after 9/11 that we are in a war on terror.  This framework was not really challenged at the time, though the press didn't accept it readily as obvious.  But it is this framework and our conception of fear and the appropriate response to it that drives America's recent and rapid decline in power and prestige.

George Soros's book The Age of Fallibility (reviewed at FDL) was really the first time a major figure took on the framework of the war on terror, and called it a false metaphor.  I think he's right, because in truth, there is no more a war on terror than there is a war on purple.  Stopping terrorism is not a war, just like stopping mobsters is not the same thing as declaring war.  Iraq is a war, Afghanistan is war, but terrorism is more like a disease than a military opponent.  Soros is a mostly lonely voice asking America to wake up and understand its mistaken framework, and correct it.  At this point, our mistakes are as obvious as the reluctance of our political system to admit them.  The war on terror is a psychological comfort blanket now, something we hang on to so we needn't wrestle with larger questions about our own morality.

Soros reiterated a number of his claims in an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal today.

An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.

With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.

The reality of America is that we cannot be destroyed by outside forces, we can only destroy ourselves.  And the fear that George Bush, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, and the rest of these right-wing extremist pseudo-conservatives whip up has led to a host of demeaning barriers to freedom.  Rather than focusing on our moral authority, we allow torture and in parts of the talk radio dial, celebrate it.  Rather than acting as free citizens, we now must show IDs in office buildings across America, strip before boarding buses and airplanes, and submit to intimidation of scientists and academics pursuing intellectual inquiry.  Rather than holding our corporate, priestly, or political leaders accountable for lies, theft, and gross immorality, we must submit to endless media sheep bleating about hyperpatriotism and free markets that are nothing but con jobs.

That is not freedom, and that is not a war on terror.  That is America destroying itself and gorging on debt to hide our painful hypocritical distortion of reality.  It's time to understand that there is no war on terror going on here, there is only a war on accountability and a war on America perpetrated by the Republican Party, its leadership, and its enablers in the press and political world.  It's time to stand up and say no more, that we will not accept this.  

Now, to be clear for the idiot right-wingers reading this, terrorism is one of many problems that we must solve, and it's a serious problem, though probably a lot less serious than global warming.  The reality of America though is that we are too strong as a country for any force to destroy except our own moral failings.  I believe the American people know this, and are willing to begin the long multi-year conversation about how to contain the immense damage George Bush and the right-wing has caused.  While the American people are ready to begin to admit our mistakes and make ourselves great again, our political, corporate, priestly, and media leaders are not.  It is time to wake them up and force them to begin to acknowledge their role in the last six years.  It's time.

The war on terror just doesn't exist any more than a child's imaginary friend exists.  It's only there as comfort and succor for spoiled political leaders.  We're stronger than that.



Display:


Delusion (3.00 / 1)

Even George Will making all kinds of sense t his time (see article below). Of course Law Enforcement is THE primary way (Kerry and others always villified for saying it - though Kerry's delivery/policy was hardly cogent). For this you need partnerships wtih world governments and their police forces, not to be at the lowest standing we have ever seen this nation in the world. I am getting all kinds of concerned that the absolute delusion flowing out of this White House is becoming less and less political and more a delusional belief system - they just keep taking bigger and bigger bets/swings for the fence which have a immense upside (unconditional defeat of Hezb'allah), but extremely weighted heavily assymetrically to the downside upon any careful study (umm, the perception in a perception driven conflict of the very opposite).

Virtually all leading/distinguished/successful foreign policy thinkers of our time agree - and virtually all are Republicans - this is not Republican foreign policy leadership, it is some neoconservative fantasy/delusion. Bring me Republican foreign policy back any day and twice on Sundays. What is that definition of insanity again...doing same thing over and over and over and expecting different results. How can you not be terrified of not only the sheer incompetence, but the absolute delusion of this Administration?

The Triumph of Unrealism

By George F. Will
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; A13

Five weeks have passed since the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers provoked Israel to launch its most unsatisfactory military operation in 58 years. What problem has been solved, or even ameliorated?

Hezbollah, often using World War II-vintage rockets, has demonstrated the inadequacy of Israel's policy of unilateral disengagement -- from Lebanon, Gaza, much of the West Bank -- behind a fence. Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement. Hitherto Hezbollah in Lebanon was a "state within a state." Henceforth, the Lebanese state may be an appendage of Hezbollah, as the collapsing Palestinian Authority is an appendage of the terrorist organization Hamas. Hezbollah is an army that, having frustrated the regional superpower, suddenly embodies, as no Arab state ever has, Arab valor vindicated in combat with Israel.

Only twice in the United Nations' six decades has it authorized the use of substantial force -- in 1950 regarding Korea and in 1990 regarding Kuwait. It still has not authorized force in Lebanon. What is being called a "cease-fire" resolution calls for Israel to stop all "offensive" operations. Israel, however, reasonably says that its entire effort is defensive. The resolution calls for Hezbollah to stop "all attacks." The United Nations, however, has twice resolved that Hezbollah should be disarmed, yet has not willed the means to that end. Regarding force now, the U.N. merely "expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further enhancements" of the U.N. force that for 28 years has been loitering without serious intent in south Lebanon.

The "new Middle East," the "birth pangs" of which we supposedly are witnessing, reflects the region's oldest tradition, the tribalism that preceded nations. The faux and disintegrating nation of Iraq, from which the middle class, the hope of stability, is fleeing, has experienced in these five weeks many more violent deaths than have occurred in Lebanon and Israel. U.S. Gen. George Casey says 60 percent of Iraqis recently killed are victims of Shiite death squads. Some are associated with the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, which resembles a terrorist organization.

The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible -- that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy -- and domestic politics -- unrealism.

Foreign policy "realists" considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.

georgewill@washpost.com


by mdp4d on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 04:16:22 PM EST

Clarification (none / 0)

This is not to say I support a Republican-foreign policy going forward. But it is undeniable that foreign policy is an Executive branch function and the Executive branch has largely been dominated by the Republican party since LBJ. Thus thought leadership has come from those - and many, many of them are violently opposed to this Iraqi debacle.


by mdp4d on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 04:24:05 PM EST

Re: The War on Accountability versus the War on Te (3.00 / 1)

Many people have said that the "war on terror" is nonsense.

Terrorists and would be mega mischief makers will be caught by police work....  not taken down by shock and awe.  And looking for these nasties should be taken seriously.

But this administration has used 9.11 and the WOT it declared to strip america of its freedoms and line the pockets of its base.

Our entire foreign policy is all about protecting multinational unfettered free market capitalism.

Almost all the hundreds of billions we spend on the military goes to corporations eventually... bombs, uniforms, weapons, planes, meals, bases... a pitance goes to soldier pay.

Cheney and his puppet Bush and their poodle Blair have taken the world to the precipice of destruction.

We are sick of war and this gathering facism around us.


by DefJef on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 04:31:50 PM EST

The problem here is... (none / 0)

...explaining this to many Americans is too complicated.  A lot of Americans, especially immediately after 9/11, want blood, for understandable, if somewhat knee-jerk and immoral, reasons.  The fact that the enemy is non-white and non-Christian means that these feelings are that much harder to temper down.

Part of why Iraq was popular was because large segments of the American public didn't really care if the Arab Muslims we are killing are actually guilty of anything, as long as we are killing some Arab Muslims, that's A-OK to them.

This is why Democrats are perceived as "weak"-because the Republicans outwarmonger us every time.  The only solution to this is to outwarmonger the Republicans, which won't work and is wrong to boot.

I feel we need to stand fast and take the hit in opinion polls.  As long as much of rural and suburban America sees, at least on a subconscious level, everybody that is not like them (aka everybody that is non-White and non-Christian) as the enemy, there's no way to win them over on this issue.  Urban Americans deal with so many different types of people on a daily basis that such feelings are much restrained.

It is not a coincidence that the blue states are dominated (population wise) by big cities and older suburbs, and the red states are dominated by newer suburbs, exurban areas, and truely rural areas.

Yes, I am calling the red states uncultured hicks-because they are.  It's the nature of rural areas throughout the planet that people who live there are much less in tune with the greater world.  If you ask 100 rural dwellers how often they have traveled abroad, how many non-White, non-Christian people they know, and compare that with 100 urban dwellers, the difference will be quite apparent.  Therefore, these types are much more supportive of emotional fearmongering the Republicans provide in spades, while logic rules the day in Democratic areas.


by Geotpf on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 05:16:37 PM EST

Re: The problem here is... (none / 0)

Try the new DSSC ad for a shorthand version of this point.  Bush has not made us safer.  We need new leadership.  It is as simple as that.


by Mimikatz on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 05:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope you are right (3.00 / 1)

But I fear you aren't.  Unless our response is "Bush isn't killing enough Arab/Muslims", this won't work.  When terrorism dominates, the Republicans win, no matter how badly they screw up the job.


by Geotpf on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 05:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Kind Words (none / 0)

It's also true that rural dwellers around the world are likely to be living in poverty.


Children, have you any fish?
by FishOutofWater on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 06:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The War to Bring on the End Times (none / 0)

The term "war on terror" is misnomer for a diversion. What we are seeing is a convergence of interests between the military industrial complex, war profiteers, big oil, right-wing Jews, and, most importantly, the extreme fundamentalist Christian right.

"Bush's fondness for fundamentalism is courting disaster at home and abroad", Karen Armstrong
Monday July 31, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ story/0,,1833810,00.html
______________ ___
"Is there a connection between a religiously motivated mistrust of science, glaring social injustice and a war in the Middle East? Bush and his administration espouse many of the ideals of the Christian right and rely on its support. American fundamentalists are convinced that the second coming of Christ is at hand; they have developed an end-time scenario of genocidal battles based on a literal reading of Revelation that is absolutely central to their theology. Christ cannot return, however, unless, in fulfilment of biblical prophecy, the Jews are in possession of the Holy Land. Before the End, the faithful will be "raptured" or snatched up into the air in order to avoid the Tribulation. Antichrist will massacre Jews who are not baptised; but Christ will defeat the mysterious "enemy from the north", and establish a millennium of peace.

This grim eschatology, developed in the late 19th century, was in part a reaction to the "social gospel" of the more liberal Christians, who believed that human beings were naturally evolving towards perfection and could build the New Jerusalem here on earth by fighting social injustice. The fundamentalists, however, believed that God was so angry with the faithless world that he could save it only by initiating a devastating catastrophe; they would see the terrible battles of the first world war, which showed that science could be used to lethal effect in the new military technology, as the beginning of the End.

The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into Rapture-speak. "Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth," says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, "but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light."
______________ __

Note the parallelism between "God's power and light and America's shock and awe. I have been debating with fundamentalists for months on a mainstream Christian church web site, UMC.org.  It is hard to realize how extreme the beliefs of the Christian right are until you try to have a discussion with them.  They not only believe Revelations literalistically, they are actively trying to bring the apocalypse to fruition. You cannot understand Bush's actions without understanding his underlying belief system.

The philosophical divide between modern Dems and Repubs was set in motion over 100 years ago with the divide between the social justice movement and the Christian fundamentalists.

So , when you think about it, you must agree that the term "War on Terror" is very good framing for a modern Crusade.


Children, have you any fish?
by FishOutofWater on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 05:19:44 PM EST

If not "war on terror" than what? (3.00 / 1)

I think Soros is dead on.  But, what's missing in his column is a positive replacement for the "war on terror."  

Soros does a great job of revealing the delusional nature of Bush's war on terror, but what we also need from a political messaging perspective is a phrase that describes what IS taking place and what we have to do to make the world a safer place (more than just pointing out that Bush is delusional, and more than "its the law enforcement, stupid.")

I don't know what this should be, but I think it could make the political debate so much easier to win.  People will be slow to abandon an emotionally highly charged framing unless they have another place to put that emotional energy.

Bush was able to achieve a rallying around "the war on terror" because it created a frame that focused and channeled a huge rush of emotional energy.  Much of his support is shaking loose, but a lot more might--especially on the "fighting terrorism" question, if there was another more positive rallying theme into which Americans could channel that same energy.


by mitchipd on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 05:43:19 PM EST

Re: If not "war on terror" than what? (none / 0)

you could call the elections a "War on Error"

you could call the anti-terrorism stuff the same thing, although it doesn't have the same demogogic punch there.

"War on Drugs" used the same metaphor...


by Chris G on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 10:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Metaphor on Terror (none / 0)

Thank you. Well said.


Dust in the wind. All we are is dust in the divine, flatulent wind.
by Nezua Limon Xoloquinta Jonez on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 07:22:56 PM EST

Re: The War on Accountability... (none / 0)

the thing that really gets me is the way the corporate media turned a blind eye to anything even remotely related to Iraq for months and months and now when it actually started to cover the darker side of our occupation it jumps all over the terror/fear/scare tactics once again and right on cue.


DAGGER
by goplies on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 07:56:20 PM EST

The term Iraq "War" is also a misnomer (none / 0)

The Iraq invasion WAS a "war" but now we have an Iraq "Occupation."  


by xtrarich on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 08:19:42 PM EST

Aw come on ... (none / 0)

"Bush's most brilliant lie" was always a transparent fiction -- if you were looking. Many forces conspired to keep Americans scared out of their wits and looking elsewhere. Now we are looking at the results.


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 09:40:40 PM EST

Flip the Script (none / 0)

I agree with you, Matt and with Soros. It's time Dems flipped the script on the Republicans and talk about which party is really more interested in using our resources and tax dollars to protect Americans here at home. Can any American really hold his or her head up high knowing that Katrina victims (who didn't seem to benefit somehow from the Republican implementation of Homeland Security in the wake of 9/11) are still living in trailers or in some cases, their cars while we spend $250 million dollars a day on the Iraqi occupation???


by Anouke on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 10:54:50 PM EST

Re: The War on Accountability versus the War on Te (none / 0)

Funny, I've been sorta thinking along the same lines.  I have not read Soros' book, and have not nearly the time to read all that I should.  You see, I am supplier of our nations addiction.  Most of my time is spent in solitude, and I have reached vaguely the same conclusions as the most excellent poster of this article and probably Soros as well, all by myself.

This means two things.  I am not a complete idiot, nor a brilliant genius.  I drive a truck in the oilfield and know these things too.  I think there may be others who know as well.

Outstanding work in this post.  Good on you.  Vote on November 7, Republicans vote on the 8th.


http://kittenstomper.blogspot.com/
by Oilfieldguy on Tue Aug 15, 2006 at 11:26:55 PM EST

Not So Fast My Friends (none / 0)

No the "War on Terror" is an accurate assessment.

The thing is, we had an age of "World War" which really didn't invovle the whole world. Then an age of "Cold War" which often included lots of hot conflicts in the developing nations. And now we have a "War on Terror" which is not really about terrorism as much as it is about American supremacy in the world.

Sure, Islamic extremists are very well funded at the moment and have been doing a great job of attacking our economic and political interests here and abroad. But it's not like they are the only ones who feel this way, and it's not like getting rid of them really fixes the problem.

That being, America is finding out just how uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.


by risenmessiah on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 01:39:04 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.